State v. Harwood

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 53202
STATE OF IDAHO,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PETER EDWARD HARWOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Filed: October 15, 2026
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Lincoln
County. Hon. Ned C. Williamson, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of eight years, for lewd conduct with a child under the age
of sixteen years and a consecutive unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of
sixteen years, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before LORELLO, Judge; FLEMING, Judge
and PETTY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Peter Edward Harwood entered an Alford1 plea to lewd conduct with a child under the age
of sixteen years, Idaho Code § 18-1508, and sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years,
I.C. § 18-1506. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court sentenced Harwood to a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of
1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

2
confinement of eight years, for the lewd conduct with a child charge and a consecutive unified
sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for the sexual abuse
of a child charge. Harwood appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984);
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the
length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722,
726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could
reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150,
154 (Ct. App. 2020). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we
cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Harwood’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.